Darwinist roots of the Holocaust
The minutes of the infamous Wannsee Conference say,
Under proper guidance, in the course of the final solution the Jews are to be allocated for appropriate labor in the East. Able-bodied Jews, separated according to sex, will be taken in large work columns to these areas for work on roads, in the course of which action doubtless a large portion will be eliminated by natural causes. The possible final remnant will, since it will undoubtedly consist of the most resistant portion, have to be treated accordingly, because it is the product of natural selection and would, if released, act as a the seed of a new Jewish revival (see the experience of history.)
(emphasis added)
But the holocaust "experts" say that there is no evidence whatsoever that Darwinism influenced the Nazis. Nosirree.
Labels: Darwin-to-HItler (new #2)
posted by Larry Fafarman | 9/05/2010 11:27:00 PM
16 Comments:
Hi Larry. I was going to post this in your blog on Mengele, but seeing as you've got a newer 'Darwin/Hitler' blog, I'll post it, adjusted a bit, here.
It's not enough to pick out the words 'Natural selection'. That only the strongest would survive harsh treatment was known for thousands of years before Darwin. Not only is it practically a rhetorical statement, but it's no different to the artificial selection that man has practiced since before bronze age times.
The Nazis rejected Darwinism. They viewed species as immutable - a Creationist doctrine. Just look up HItler's 'A fox remains a fox' passage from Mein Kampf. Also look up the Nazis' list of banned literature - you'll find Darwinism there.
Secondly, you're on dangerous ground if you want to prove the Nazis' inspiration by picking out single phrases from their statements. You are no doubt well aware of the many, many references to God in Nazi literature. The argument that the Nazis misunderstood or perverted the bible is no different from claiming they misunderstood biological science.
Regarding your 'Mengele Socialist Darwinist' headline earlier this year, the 'socialist' part is as hard to back up as the Darwinist part. Freemarket capitalism is actually far closer to Darwinism than socialism is. In fact, the term 'survival of the fittest' was coined specifically to apply to capitalism by Herbert Spencer.
The idea of the freemarket - that the best companies will survive in the cut and thrust of business, and the best staff will earn the most money, much like 'red in tooth and claw' nature, is of course at odds with socialism, where businesses can be artificially propped up by the state, and those unfit to work (or who just can't find work) receive state handouts.
So Socialist Darwinist is a bit of a contradiction in terms. It's far easier to draw a line from right-wing libertarian capitalism to the Nazis.
For my money, the only aspect of socialism you'll find in Nazi philosophies is in their name, which has as much relevance as the word 'Democratic' in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, or indeed 'Republic' in the People's Republic of China.
In other words, the first lie most dictatorships tell is the lie in their name that they're not a dictatorship, and if you want to show that the Nazis were socialists then you need to do more than point to their name.
Hi Larry.
That only the strongest would survive harsh treatment was known for thousands of years before Darwin. Not only is it practically a rhetorical statement, it's no different to the artificial selection that man has practiced since before bronze age times.
The Nazis rejected Darwinism. They viewed species as immutable - a Creationist doctrine. Just look up HItler's 'A fox remains a fox' passage from Mein Kampf. Also look up the Nazis' list of banned literature - you'll find Darwinism there.
Second, you're on dangerous ground if you want to prove the Nazis' inspiration by picking out single phrases from their statements. You are no doubt well aware of the many, many references to God in Nazi literature. The argument that the Nazis misunderstood or perverted the bible is no different from claiming they misunderstood biological science.
Regarding your 'Mengele Socialist Darwinist' headline earlier this year, the 'socialist' part is as hard to back up as the Darwinist part. Freemarket capitalism is actually far closer to Darwinism than socialism is. In fact, the term 'survival of the fittest' was coined specifically to apply to capitalism by Herbert Spencer.
The idea of the freemarket - that the best companies will survive in the cut and thrust of business, and the best staff will earn the most money, much like 'red in tooth and claw' nature, is of course at odds with socialism, where businesses can be artificially propped up by the state, and those unfit to work (or who just can't find work) receive state handouts.
So Socialist Darwinist is a bit of a contradiction in terms. It's far easier to draw a line from right-wing libertarian capitalism to the Nazis.
For my money, the only aspect of socialism you'll find in Nazi philosophies is in their name, which has as much relevance as the word 'Democratic' in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, or indeed 'Republic' in the People's Republic of China.
In other words, the first lie most dictatorships tell is the lie in their name that they're not a dictatorship, and if you want to show that the Nazis were socialists then you need to do more than point to their name.
Regarding your 'Mengele Socialist Darwinist' headline earlier this year, the 'socialist' part is as hard to back up as the Darwinist part. Freemarket capitalism is actually far closer to Darwinism than socialism is. In fact, the term 'survival of the fittest' was coined specifically to apply to capitalism by Herbert Spencer.
The idea of the freemarket - that the best companies will survive in the cut and thrust of business, and the best staff will earn the most money, much like 'red in tooth and claw' nature, is of course at odds with socialism, where businesses can be artificially propped up by the state, and those unfit to work (or who just can't find work) receive state handouts.
So Socialist Darwinist is a bit of a contradiction in terms. It's far easier to draw a line from right-wing libertarian capitalism to the Nazis.
For my money, the only aspect of socialism you'll find in Nazi philosophies is in their name, which has as much relevance as the word 'Democratic' in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, or indeed 'Republic' in the People's Republic of China.
In other words, the first lie most dictatorships tell is the lie in their name that they're not a dictatorship, and if you want to show that the Nazis were socialists then you need to do more than point to their name.
>>>>>> You are no doubt well aware of the many, many references to God in Nazi literature. <<<<<<
So maybe the Nazis were theistic evolutionists like Ken Miller, Francis Collins, Peter Hess of the National Center for Science Education's "Religious Community Outreach," and the signers of the "Clergy Letter."
>>>>>> Regarding your 'Mengele Socialist Darwinist' headline earlier this year, the 'socialist' part is as hard to back up as the Darwinist part.<<<<<<
I called Mengele a "Social Darwinist," not a "Socialist Darwinist."
Except, as I already pointed out, they rejected evolution. That makes them theistic creationists.
And what's a 'social Darwinist'? I'd understand that to mean, as I said before, a freemarket capitalist. That's if the phrase has any meaning at all, which it doesn't seem to. Would you talk about a 'social special theory of relativity-ist'?
>>>>>>> Except, as I already pointed out, they rejected evolution. That makes them theistic creationists. <<<<<<
Well, I think that theistic evolutionists like Ken Miller and Francis Collins have been called "evolutionary creationists" or "new creationists."
>>>>>> And what's a 'social Darwinist'? I'd understand that to mean, as I said before, a freemarket capitalist. <<<<<<
Well, your understanding is wrong, bozo.
Social Darwinist is a meaningless term. Are scientists who make nuclear bombs 'social Einsteinists?
Artificial selection is by definition nothing to do with artificial selection. If they were the same, then Darwin would have had nothing new to say, as the former existed for thousands of years before he was born.
"I think that theistic evolutionists like Ken Miller and Francis Collins have been called "evolutionary creationists" or "new creationists.""
They are not creationists in any sense that anyone who uses the term understands it. Unless you want to equivicate that they believe that a creator is involved at some point, in which case all deists and theists could be called 'creationists'.
"bozo"
Oh right, you're unable to make a point without resorting to insult. It's telling that you make the insult without actually trying to explain where you think I've gone wrong. I was quite polite to you, it seems you cannot return the courtesy.
And thus you give up the argument. Good day, Sir.
>>>>>>> Artificial selection is by definition nothing to do with artificial selection. <<<<<<
What?
>>>>>>> Oh right, you're unable to make a point without resorting to insult. It's telling that you make the insult without actually trying to explain where you think I've gone wrong. I was quite polite to you, it seems you cannot return the courtesy.
And thus you give up the argument. Good day, Sir. <<<<<<<
You ought to just be glad that I publish your drivel at all. I can't get my comments published on a lot of blogs.
Sorry, correction: Artificial selection is by definition nothing to do with natural selection.
"I can't get my comments published on a lot of blogs."
Yes, I've just googled your name and have seen the whole sordid tale for myself.
"Drivel"
Yes, it's probably your resort to insults and ad homs that get you banned. You might want to work on that.
BTW, a lot of the denial of a Darwin-Hitler link is based on the notion that Hitler was not personally directly influenced by Darwin. But it is believed that American eugenics programs strongly influenced the Nazis, and it is believed that those American eugenics programs were strongly influenced by Darwinism.
All sorts of things are 'believed'. Where's the evidence?
How do you get from the 'is' of natural selection to an 'ought'? We observe animals fighting for survival, that doesn't mean we should also fight for survival. Darwin also observe symbiotic relationships in nature, which features as much in natural selection as anything else.
Among the few 'oughts' you'll find in Darwin's writing is occasional tirades against the evil of slavery, and asides such as "the love for all living creatures is the most noble attribute of man".
Some of Darwin's descendants may have been involved in eugenics, but that's simply guilt by association. You might as well blame him for the fact that one of his descendants wrote the ghastly Bruce Willis movie 'The Color of Night'.
So? If Nazi scientists believed in evolution, that doesn't mean that evolution is wrong. I assume Nazi scientists also accepted the Copernican theory.
What inspired Hitler?
"I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty Creator. By warding off the Jews I am fighting for the Lord's work."
[Adolph Hitler, Speech, Reichstag, 1936]
Well, so maybe Hitler was a "theistic evolutionist."
Anyway, as I stated in a previous comment,
"a lot of the denial of a Darwin-Hitler link is based on the notion that Hitler was not personally directly influenced by Darwin. But it is believed that American eugenics programs strongly influenced the Nazis, and it is believed that those American eugenics programs were strongly influenced by Darwinism."
Anyway, your quote of Hitler says nothing about whether or not he believed in evolution theory, or whether or not he was influenced by evolution theory.
Post a Comment
<< Home